The College Board has taken the additional step of releasing a sample AP U.S. history test to demonstrate the inclusiveness of its approach. But Krieger, for one, isn't satisfied. He paged through it last week with Newsweek, settling on a series of questions keyed to a famous 1890 photograph by Jacob Riis of squalid conditions in a New York tenement.

One question asked is "Conditions like those shown in the image contributed most directly to which of the following?" The correct answer is, "An increase in Progressive reform activity."

Kreiger comments, "That’s historically true but note that progressives are going to be the heroes in this narrative."

His first 3 words are "that's historically true" so that should be the end of it, it's about history and what happened.

____________________________

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

Republicans hate being called stupid, but come the **** on. I can't even find a way to express the disgust I'm feeling with that article. It's like every minute something new pops up to indicate some massive and unstoppable downward spiral in humanity, particularly, and almost exclusively in Americans.

One question asked is "Conditions like those shown in the image contributed most directly to which of the following?" The correct answer is, "An increase in Progressive reform activity."

Kreiger comments, "That’s historically true but note that progressives are going to be the heroes in this narrative."

Here is the photo referenced above:

Conservative values could have been the heroes if those immigrants had just gone to the textile factory next door and demanded more money. Who needs labor reform and government regulation when the free market was working so well for them?

His first 3 words are "that's historically true" so that should be the end of it, it's about history and what happened.

Don't be silly. He's wrong and an idiot, but it's absolutely possible to make a ludicrous historical narrative that's completely true, just incomplete. If every question on the test had a pro socialism answer and the only Republicans mentioned where the ones who tried to bang teenage boys, he'd have a point. I mean it would be really easy to make that sort of test, but it's probably good to also include Republicans who lie about hiking the Appalachian trail to bang foreigners.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

As long as they have some questions where capitalists are the heroes, it's fair and balanced right?

Well, you'd probably want it to be based on fact, so that one would be a stretch.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

His first 3 words are "that's historically true" so that should be the end of it, it's about history and what happened.

His issue isn't about whether something is true, but the bias with regard to what is chosen to be presented/tested and the surrounding context. In some cases, it's about the wording. For example, the question highlighted above has some awkward language. Why ask what conditions in the photo "contributed most directly to"? That's a strange wording. A better way to ask the question would be to use the word "resulted", not "contributed". Resulted means you're asking an actual historical question: "What happened as a result of this condition?". The word contributed suggests some kind of positive action, which is just strange in this context. So maybe they're just poorly worded, but the argument being made by conservatives is that the wording is designed intentionally to inject the idea of intent rather than just cause/effect.

It also has the potential to support the bizarre cart before the horse idea that if you start with the goal of "progressive reform" the way to contribute to the cause of achieving that is to either create impoverished conditions or create the perception of such. And frankly, there's evidence in some social movements that support this being done by the left (just look at what's going on in Ferguson right now for an example). The idea that the way to get what you want is to be a victim (or be perceived as a victim) has become commonplace among the left. So yeah, that's why that wording bothers conservatives.

It's also helpful to read the actual article, and not the editorial slamming it. Far more information about the full context of the complaints is available. It wasn't just that question, but all the questions in that section. The next question asked about the cause of the conditions, and the answer was basically just "low wages", which again is technically correct, but fails to address *why* these men earned such low wages. Which sorta echoes the modern liberal argument for higher wages for everyone, while ignoring the fact that wage *should* vary based on the value of the labor in the workplace. And let's face it, "cause they had low wages" is a crappy answer for an AP level test.

The final question in that section directly ties "advocates for individuals such as those shown in the image" with those who believe that "government should act to eliminate the worst abuses of industrial society". So not only does this leave the student with the assumption that low wages are "abuse", but that if you feel for people earning low wages, you must support active government intervention. And, just in case the "liberals care for the poor while conservatives don't" angle wasn't presented strongly enough, one of the wrong answers to the question was: "Capitalism free of government regulation would improve social conditions”. So the test blatantly assumes that anyone who believes that capitalism will improve social conditions are *not* people who care about individuals like those in the image. So, of course, anyone teaching their students to pass the test would have to teach them that capitalism doesn't improve people's social conditions (despite massive evidence that the opposite is true).

That's biased as ****. And biased specifically to influence the students views of current political issues, under the guise of teaching and testing them about historical events. So yeah, that's a problem.

His issue isn't about whether something is true, but the bias with regard to what is chosen to be presented/tested and the surrounding context. In some cases, it's about the wording. For example, the question highlighted above has some awkward language. Why ask what conditions in the photo "contributed most directly to"? That's a strange wording. A better way to ask the question would be to use the word "resulted", not "contributed". Resulted means you're asking an actual historical question: "What happened as a result of this condition?". The word contributed suggests some kind of positive action, which is just strange in this context

No, ******, "Resulted" would indicate the conditions were the sole cause. For example, your post "resulted" in my mocking laughter. "Contributed" indicates that the conditions were a factor in a certain result. For example your post "contributed" to my feelings of superiority relative to GOP voters.

Understand?

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

His issue isn't about whether something is true, but the bias with regard to what is chosen to be presented/tested and the surrounding context. In some cases, it's about the wording. For example, the question highlighted above has some awkward language. Why ask what conditions in the photo "contributed most directly to"? That's a strange wording. A better way to ask the question would be to use the word "resulted", not "contributed". Resulted means you're asking an actual historical question: "What happened as a result of this condition?". The word contributed suggests some kind of positive action, which is just strange in this context

No, ******, "Resulted" would indicate the conditions were the sole cause.

No. It would indicate that the effect was the sole (or in this case "most direct") result. Remember we're asking for the effect "resulting" from the cause, not the cause "contributing" to the effect. The problem with the word contributed is that it's used backwards relative to the question. If you started with a question about progressive reform and asked which things contributed to an increase in said reform, pointing to the conditions in the photo would be correct because it's one of many things that contributed to the thing you are talking about. But when you start with the image and go the other direction, you are looking at the "result" from the conditions in the image (or "most direct result"). And that answer is "increased progressive reform".

No. It would indicate that the effect was the sole (or in this case "most direct") result. Remember we're asking for the effect "resulting" from the cause, not the cause "contributing" to the effect. The problem with the word contributed is that it's used backwards relative to the question. If you started with a question about progressive reform and asked which things contributed to an increase in said reform, pointing to the conditions in the photo would be correct because it's one of many things that contributed to the thing you are talking about. But when you start with the image and go the other direction, you are looking at the "result" from the conditions in the image (or "most direct result"). And that answer is "increased progressive reform".

It's about the directionality of the wording.

Quote:

Understand?

Yes, I do. You don't though.

Wow, that is quite the gymnastic logic. Almost impressive.

Nah, just kidding, you look like an ******* and a ****** when you post things like this!

No. It would indicate that the effect was the sole (or in this case "most direct") result. Remember we're asking for the effect "resulting" from the cause, not the cause "contributing" to the effect. The problem with the word contributed is that it's used backwards relative to the question.

Nope, it's worded perfectly. Amazingly, a test written and reviewed by dozens of people with advanced degrees *somehow* managed to be more correct than your wild fucking guess.

Amazing.

Edited, Aug 21st 2014 6:31pm by Smasharoo

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Short version: Boy, the turn of the twentieth century sure made free market principles look like crap for most people. We should totally fight against that narrative though since those principles make up a good chunk of our ideology.

gbaji can't make the distinction between "unrestrained capitalism can improve the life of the working class" and "unrestrained capitalism will improve the life of the working class".

And of course gbaji completely ignores "unrestrained capitalism can result in the working class being treated as virtual slaves". He seem blissfully unaware that that is the situation depicted in the picture.

____________________________

Allegory wrote:

Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.

Short version: Boy, the turn of the twentieth century sure made free market principles look like **** for most people. We should totally fight against that narrative though since those principles make up a good chunk of our ideology.

Actually the sophisticated Van Misses/Hayek wing of economics argument is that there was just too much regulation during the industrial revolution and that's what lead to monopolies and wild wealth disparity. Government intervention. I'm in no way joking. There are models that almost make that look plausible but they include assumptions that are about as likely as Andorra successfully invading the US. Mostly revolving around the working poor being self actualized ubermenchen who can unerringly determine the best personal outcome from every decision. Which would be awesome, but sadly they historically seem more like the sort of people who would buy the Brooklyn Bridge for it's obvious high toll income potential.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

I dunno, I think everyone just has kids and don't have time to save the whales anymore. Then some government thing wants you to take time to fill out a form or two and it's like "WTF I don't have time for this there's **** on the floor! Get the government off my back!" Then boom you have a suburban Republican.

No. It would indicate that the effect was the sole (or in this case "most direct") result. Remember we're asking for the effect "resulting" from the cause, not the cause "contributing" to the effect. The problem with the word contributed is that it's used backwards relative to the question.

Nope, it's worded perfectly.

Yes, it is. If your objective is to subtly introduce repetitive use of associative linguistics in order to foster an easier acceptance of social liberal ideology among the population, then it is worded perfectly. It's quite obviously the correct answer, but also happens to include a connotation which supports the idea that you can contribute to positive social policy by having conditions of poverty (or more correctly, since we're talking about an image the appearance of conditions of poverty). Members of society sufficiently exposed to these sorts of associations, are much more likely to adopt an approach to social methodology which includes the exaggeration of social ills in order to achieve the desired social policy action (ie: cart before the horse). People thus afflicted with this mindset will do things like take an officer involved shooting, assume that it must be both unwarranted and racially motivated, and steadfastly ignore any facts or data that might question that starting assumption. They will do this because they have been taught via repetition that you start with the desired social change and then find/fabricate/exaggerate conditions in society to convince people to accept said change.

It's about teaching kids to think backwards. As I said, the wording is backwards. And it's not accidentally so.

Quote:

Amazingly, a test written and reviewed by dozens of people with advanced degrees *somehow* managed to be more correct than your wild fucking guess.

Huh? That doesn't even make sense. There's no right or wrong here. It's a matter of whether the word choice in the question/answer is designed to promote a specific view on social policy in addition to testing the students knowledge. It most definitely does. And yes, it takes people with advanced degrees to understand how to frame questions on tests to do this.

They will do this because they have been taught via repetition that you start with the desired social change and then find/fabricate/exaggerate conditions in society to convince people to accept said change.

It's about teaching kids to think backwards. As I said, the wording is backwards. And it's not accidentally so.

For example, you might be told something by a political party like "Gay marriage is wrong" and then you'll blindly accept this and start retroactively trying to build a framework for WHY it's wrong with hilariously poor results.

gbaji can't make the distinction between "unrestrained capitalism can improve the life of the working class" and "unrestrained capitalism will improve the life of the working class".

Yes, and who chose the answer in the multiple choice list? Why not include the first statement instead of the second (they used "would", but close enough).

If I wanted to discourage people from eating vegetables, I might ask the following question:

True or False: Eating the recommended amount of vegetables will prevent you from ever getting sick.

Clearly, the answer is false, right? Now, how does it affect people's perception of vegetables if I ask this question instead:

True or False: Eating the recommended amount of vegetables will make you less likely to get sick.

Assuming that people who eat the right amount of vegetables will be more healthy than those who don't, the answer is "true", right? Do you see how by deliberately framing the question about something we dislike in such an absolute manner, we can force people to answer negatively about that thing? Do you see how if the subject was something less commonly understood and discussed (like say capitalism compared to eating vegetables), that students, perhaps never knowing anything more about capitalism than the references in various tests and textbooks, might be inclined to adopt the assumption that capitalism is "bad" simply because of the wording of the question (or others similarly worded that they've encountered).

How you use words affects how people view the things the words represent. Even when not talking about that thing at all, you can create a perception of something just by how you use it in a sentence.

Quote:

And of course gbaji completely ignores "unrestrained capitalism can result in the working class being treated as virtual slaves". He seem blissfully unaware that that is the situation depicted in the picture.

That's great and all. I'd absolutely love it if we actually had education that taught kids the actual pros and cons of capitalism rather than having them pick up bits and pieces of subjective associative language along the way. But that's not really the point here. The point is that in a question where the correct answer was "Government should act to eliminate the worst abuses of industrial society", one of the incorrect answers was "Capitalism free of government regulation would improve social conditions”. This was clearly designed to create a very simplistic association: Government is good, Capitalism is bad.

The question isn't even relevant here. Only that the correct answer be about the positive nature of government regulation and the inclusion of a "wrong" answer including capitalism. This forces the student to choose government regulation and reject capitalism. Which is exactly the point. Do this sort of thing enough times and you'll find a greater percentage of your population viewing government regulation more positively than they would otherwise, and capitalism more negatively than otherwise.

Again, the question is just the medium by which the message is sent.

I'll also point out (in response to your point about can versus will), that the correct answer also didn't leave any room for failure. It could have included the word "attempt" in there, but didn't. The clear assumption being fostered here is that government is the means to solve social problems. ****. There's so many layers of progressive assumption in that question it's almost laughable. The part about "Advocates for individuals" has a connotation as well (which I already discussed). It's also not really asking for a factual historical answer (ie: "As a result of conditions shown in this image, the following occurred:", with the answer being about government reforms). That's a fact based question. But this test asked about what sorts of things advocates of the people in the photo would have agreed with. This is therefore much more about teaching kids about associations between advocates for victims and social policy than about historical actions.

You've got to be pretty blind (Yeah, not even going there) not to see how massively biased this test is. It's laughably so. Like if I got 50 liberal experts in social theory and linguistics together in a room and said "I want you to write an AP History test that looks on the surface like a legitimate test, but requires students to positively reinforce liberal social ideas in order to answer the questions", this is what they would come up with.

They will do this because they have been taught via repetition that you start with the desired social change and then find/fabricate/exaggerate conditions in society to convince people to accept said change.

It's about teaching kids to think backwards. As I said, the wording is backwards. And it's not accidentally so.

For example, you might be told something by a political party like "Gay marriage is wrong" and then you'll blindly accept this and start retroactively trying to build a framework for WHY it's wrong with hilariously poor results.

Interesting example. Backwards, of course. But interesting.

It's more like teaching your kids to start with an understanding of liberalism and how it applies to government power, then having them reject a proposal to expand state marriage benefits to homosexual couples on the grounds that this violates the correct application of said power.

On the flip side (and this is where your example is excellent) is teaching kids that "*** marriage is good (ie: a right)", and getting them to blindly accept this and retroactively construct ridiculous arguments as to why anyone who disagrees is a bad person and must be bigoted or too religious, or any reason at all other than the actual reasons they use.

It's funny because it's the left that does this Joph. You're the guys who start with "we must expand marriage to include homosexuals" and then constructs an argument and rationale to support it. Because there's no way to start with a set of principles and governing "rules" based on those principles and arrive at "we should provide a slew of benefits to \*** couples who enter into a marriage contract". You just can't. It's completely illogical. You can only arrive there if you work backwards from the end point.

Great example. Wish I'd thought of it!

Quote:

Is this really what you want your kids doing, Smash?

I'm reasonably certain that Smash is teaching his kids how to use all the liberal rhetoric out there for positive personal gain. Just a guess.

Seriously though. Here's a challenge for you: Start with a set of social principles (not end positions like "*** marriage should be legal", but basic principles like "people should enjoy maximum freedom"). Based on these principles build a set of rules for governing a society that will best incorporate those principles (we can assume this is some form of liberalism, but you're free to experiment with others if you want). Then, step by step derive a rational for creating a government status which rewards same *** couples who enter into a marriage contract.

I'm honestly curious to see what sort of starting point you can concoct and what steps you could follow from that starting point to arrive at the proposed end point. Personally, I don't think it's possible. But I'm sure you'll describe some kind of underpants gnome like process to get there and insist it's perfect.

Also, Zam censors the colloquial term for homosexuality because it's terrible and shameful and no one should have to hear about it.

So why aren't the LGBTA folks marching on Google HQ as we speak? I mean, I'm just saying that if they choose to contractually bind themselves to a life partner, the government doesn't have to reward them. Google is actively seeking to erase them from our language! This must be stopped, right? Right!?

I'm saying that trying to get you to admit to the flaws in your "reasoning" is pointless since you would never, ever do so. Therefore, I have no interest in playing "Gbaji's Thought Experiments" or whatever. I posted what I did to give Smash a chuckle. You go ahead and carry on as you were. Heck, maybe even try to imply that I'm too scared or incapable of matching your challenges or say "But consider this..." and type a little screed about how you've solved the liberal indoctrination mind puzzle. It'll make you feel better and Smash will still get his chuckle. Win-Win.

Seriously though. Here's a challenge for you: Start with a set of social principles (not end positions like "*** marriage should be legal", but basic principles like "people should enjoy maximum freedom"). Based on these principles build a set of rules for governing a society that will best incorporate those principles (we can assume this is some form of liberalism, but you're free to experiment with others if you want). Then, step by step derive a rational for creating a government status which rewards same **** couples who enter into a marriage contract.

I'm honestly curious to see what sort of starting point you can concoct and what steps you could follow from that starting point to arrive at the proposed end point. Personally, I don't think it's possible. But I'm sure you'll describe some kind of underpants gnome like process to get there and insist it's perfect.

How about "Homosexuals should not be treated as second and third class citizens, therefore they should be allowed to marry and receive the same rights and benefits as heteros". With the current state of marriage and divorces, along with foster, adoptive and surrogate parenting, there really is no reason *not* to allow it. Except for personal or religious grounds. Which should be entirely irrelevant.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.